Can someone explain why democrats think

[jillian]

"the economy grows from the middle class out". I heard numerous democrats say that lately and it doesn't make sense. If your middle class, you are not hiring anyone, and you don't have much discretionary income to stimulate the economy- investment wise.

Because it does. History has proven it.

Wealth doesnt trickle down

Can you tell me why republicans think it does despite the lie having been put to their "theory"

 

[Rocko]

"the economy grows from the middle class out". I heard numerous democrats say that lately and it doesn't make sense. If your middle class, you are not hiring anyone, and you don't have much discretionary income to stimulate the economy- investment wise.

Because it does. History has proven it.

Wealth doesnt trickle down

Can you tell me why republicans think it does despite the lie having been put to their "theory"

So you believe the middle class employ people?

 

[Shelzin]

Because the middle class does the bulk of the spending and buying.

Without that buying power, who are the producers going to sell to?

Smart man.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Holy shit........we are gonna need a ******* jack-hammer to bust through some of these skulls.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"the economy grows from the middle class out". I heard numerous democrats say that lately and it doesn't make sense. If your middle class, you are not hiring anyone, and you don't have much discretionary income to stimulate the economy- investment wise.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama stated the GOP wanted the economy to grow from the top down. In an appeal to the class warfare crowd, he claimed he would grow the economy from the bottom up.
SInce that has been discovered to be impractical and impossible, now it's from the middle out.
This is a prime example of the limited understanding of economics exhibited by the President.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because the middle class does the bulk of the spending and buying.

Without that buying power, who are the producers going to sell to?

That is true but not accurate.
Because of the sheer number of those in the middle class, their buying power is the largest because it is the larger group.
If a statistical analysis is done it would state those with the most wealth have the most buying power per capita.
For example...A wealthy person with net assets of one million dollars in disposable income has 100 times the buying power of a person with $10k in disposable income.
So when a wealthy person buys a home, he or she will outfit that home( furniture, decor, etc) at a rate that may be in excess of what a middle class person FINANCES just to move into a new house.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"the economy grows from the middle class out". I heard numerous democrats say that lately and it doesn't make sense. If your middle class, you are not hiring anyone, and you don't have much discretionary income to stimulate the economy- investment wise.

Because you can't fix stupid. By the way. Why doesn't Obama ever talk about the poor?

I believe that Democrats have a vested interest in keeping a segment of our population poor to be used for political reasons.

And even expanding the ranks of dependent people. It fits the lib template. The more people on federal assistance, the more people likely to vote for those that made the assistance available.
The idea is that dependent people are easier to control which leaves little oversight of the elite ruling class.
Social spending and it's expansion has created a permanent underclass.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And there'd be no accumulation of capital without product or service to sell and someone to sell it to.

By an individual getting up off his ass and starting a business that grows to the point that they need employees.

You can demand all you want, but until someone takes some initiative and creates something, all you have is a popcorn fart.

And that individual's business is not going to grow to the point where he needs employees if there's no one to buy his goods or services in the first place.

That is a false premise predicated on the belief that only one class (middle) does any of the buying.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The question has been answered.

The idiots do not realize that most American business owners are members of the middle class and the majority of American employees are hired by members of the middle class.

Seriously out of touch.

that's simply false. You have any proof to back up your claim????

look at your own situation.

You probably own a 401K, some bonds, a house, a car etc.

That's wealth.


The rich will always be rich, and the poor will always be poor.

It's the poor slobs in between that get pinched by both ends.

when the middle is prosperous, the wealthy get better as do the poor.

See ?

You contradicted yourself.
You stated the rich would always be rich, the poor, poor. Then you insist the middle class helps the poor not be poor.
HUH?
If there is no mobility between income classes, then how is it your statement is even believable?
I sub,it that only the producers prosper by their achievements. Those who do not produce( income) remain in their station.

 

[thereisnospoon]

that's simply false. You have any proof to back up your claim????

Here's some. Thanks.

How Much Money do Small Business Owners Make? » Small Business News, Tips, Advice - Small Business Trends Small Business News, Tips, Advice – Small Business Trends

The importance of small business hiring in the U.S. | Marketplace.org


Who Makes $250,000 a Year? Not Small Business... | Gather

Small Business Owners

you're not welcome. You do understand that most S corps and sole proprietorship's don't have employees...don't you? I have an s corp, doesn't make me a job creator.

You think because someone is incorporated they hire people. That's cute. Go run along and play now.

There two premises that liberals hold..One is business operates to create employment.
The other is business has an obligation to the community TO hire people. One woman on a talk radio program called it "a symbiotic relationship"..Her husband had been laid off by a company in her city that had seen a downturn in business. Her husband worked in the maintenance dept, he was a custodian. The host attempted to explain that labor is the highest percentage cost of doing business. That those costs would be reduced first not only to save the jobs for those who produced revenue but the company itself.
She went on to say that she believed that even though the company was not making as much money the company owed it to the people of the area to retain all the workers.
Another woman called in the same program complaining about the fact that she had been laid off form her job as a newspaper reporter. She claimed she was very good at what she did. The host asked if she had looked to other cities for work. She said that due to family obligations she could not relocate. But her anger grew as the host continued on that line of thought as to while she thought herself to be such a good reporter that she would not move to where the jobs were. She finally let it out that she believed the newspaper company where she had worked, owed it to her to keep her employed there.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The greed factor was the reason trickle down never worked and can never work. A strong middle class created by companies who eliminate the greed factor become strong economy builders.

It's a cooperative effort.

Bullshit.

The federal spending factor had more to do with that than anything else.

Those who were at the top never let any of that wealth trickle down, did you really expect they would? They don't today. I work for a multi-billion dollar corporation and believe me, they save those nickles and dimes as if they were paupers.

The middle management people have to do the job of three to earn even an acceptable wage.

Greed is a factor these days. It lives!

Then find a job elsewhere.
Please stop whining.
A lesson...The company is not obligated to you. They company is obligated to the owners. Those being the people who have put their money at risk to buy a piece of the business. Those are called shareholders.
Have you bought stock in your employer? Why not have a stake in the company other than just a paycheck?
I have to laugh about this stuff.
People would rather point out that the company is screwing them rather than open their eyes and look for opportunity.
If you work for a publicly traded company then buy some of their stock. If a 401k is available, put some money into it. Most likely part of the investment is in company stock.
Or would you rather just complain?

 

[Dr Grump]

By an individual getting up off his ass and starting a business that grows to the point that they need employees.

You can demand all you want, but until someone takes some initiative and creates something, all you have is a popcorn fart.

And that individual's business is not going to grow to the point where he needs employees if there's no one to buy his goods or services in the first place.

That is a false premise predicated on the belief that only one class (middle) does any of the buying.

They do most of the buying and without them there is no market....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Even the people who own hot dog stands are rich, according to democrats.

What the **** are you talking about?

He's got you all fucked up...
I think the chick with the big tits and the shoulder pads may be smarter than you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"the economy grows from the middle class out". I heard numerous democrats say that lately and it doesn't make sense. If your middle class, you are not hiring anyone, and you don't have much discretionary income to stimulate the economy- investment wise.

Our economy is consumer driven. The single biggest group of consumers are the middle class.

Correct and correct. However, wealthy people have more buying power and thus on a per capita basis do most of the spending.
Where as a middle class person may buy a $30,000 car and so may the wealthy person, the middle class person will hold onto that car for 7-10 years. The wealthy person will buy a new car every two or three years.

 

[toomuchtime_]

"the economy grows from the middle class out". I heard numerous democrats say that lately and it doesn't make sense. If your middle class, you are not hiring anyone, and you don't have much discretionary income to stimulate the economy- investment wise.

Our economy is consumer driven. The single biggest group of consumers are the middle class.

Correct and correct. However, wealthy people have more buying power and thus on a per capita basis do most of the spending.

Even more importantly, wealthy people who don't need to spend everything they earn provide the investment capital to start the businesses that sell the things the middle class buys.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Democrats don't understand how the economy works. From what I can gather they think that the Middle class grows the economy because they are the ones doing the buying mostly. They can't understand how jobs come into play and how corporations and businesses make the products, etc. They think it's a linear progression from the middle class consumer out. I've tried on many occasions to make them understand how it all fits together, they simply won't or can't understand.

Well, when you think about it, if they were smart, they wouldn't be liberals.

They pay the most taxes and make the most purchases of products and services that support businesses, the government and thus the economy.The poor don't contribute and the rich don't because they pay no taxes and have big tax havens and hide their money.

Tax havens?....Please stop the nonsense.
Look, the government writes the tax laws. Your complaint should go there.
I hide money. I am far from rich.
I use the tax laws to reduce my tax liability as much as possible.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As a business owner of over 25 years my profit grows from the workers I hire and the fact that most of my clients are middle class who when they are fortunate to have some extra money chose to hire me to improve their house. If they have no money, I have no work. They key is for businesses to only produce high paying jobs. Minimum wage pay should never ever ever be equated with a "job." That is called only showing up. Any business owner with a shred of smarts knows if you pay more than your competition you get much better results and keeping labor costs low is your demise.

That applies only to skilled and experienced labor
A business that over pays for low or no skilled labor or non-productive labor is a broke business.

 

[regent]

During the Great Depression one could see the shuttered factories, and machines sitting idle. At one time most of the shuttered factories were alive and well. The factories had money behind them, the buildings were there all intact, the machines and workers were there, and then bingo they closed the doors, machines quiet, what had changed? The business couldn't sell their product not because people didn't want their product but because they didn't have the money to buy it. Bingo the businss closed up.
What businessmen would continue making products that no one had the money to buy?

Wrong. Much of American industry was heavily leveraged and when the stock market crash wiped out much of America's investment capital, lenders began to call in other debts to cover their losses. When business owners couldn't cover their loans, they were forced to close their doors and liquidate what assets they could, of course, laying off their workers in the process.

Growing the economy from the middle out is political bullshit. You can have all the demand in the world for your product, but if you can't find investors to give you the money to open a factory and cover your operating expenses, nothing will happen. You can have the best idea for a business in the world, but if you can't find investors who will give you start up capital, nothing will happen.

The difference between Obama and Romney, or more broadly between left and right, is that Obama believes the government should tax away some investment capital and direct to politically and ideologically sound investments, such as windmills or solar panels or electric cars and Romney and others on the right believe that private investors risking their own money are more likely to make investments that will produce economic growth than are politicians and bureaucrats, and most of the world agrees with Romney, which is why so many previously central planned economies such as China and Russia are now allowing private investors to determine where investment capital should go.

Hoover provided investment capital with the RFC and the companies sat on the money, what businessman would continue producing products that no one is buying? Of course the investers could insist the factory keep producing but what investers would do that? Why did farmers dump their milk in ditches when people wanted the milk? The farmers had the product, no investers needed, but it went into ditches. Why would companies spend billions on advertising to create a demand if demand wasn't a major factor?

 

[toomuchtime_]

During the Great Depression one could see the shuttered factories, and machines sitting idle. At one time most of the shuttered factories were alive and well. The factories had money behind them, the buildings were there all intact, the machines and workers were there, and then bingo they closed the doors, machines quiet, what had changed? The business couldn't sell their product not because people didn't want their product but because they didn't have the money to buy it. Bingo the businss closed up.
What businessmen would continue making products that no one had the money to buy?

Wrong. Much of American industry was heavily leveraged and when the stock market crash wiped out much of America's investment capital, lenders began to call in other debts to cover their losses. When business owners couldn't cover their loans, they were forced to close their doors and liquidate what assets they could, of course, laying off their workers in the process.

Growing the economy from the middle out is political bullshit. You can have all the demand in the world for your product, but if you can't find investors to give you the money to open a factory and cover your operating expenses, nothing will happen. You can have the best idea for a business in the world, but if you can't find investors who will give you start up capital, nothing will happen.

The difference between Obama and Romney, or more broadly between left and right, is that Obama believes the government should tax away some investment capital and direct to politically and ideologically sound investments, such as windmills or solar panels or electric cars and Romney and others on the right believe that private investors risking their own money are more likely to make investments that will produce economic growth than are politicians and bureaucrats, and most of the world agrees with Romney, which is why so many previously central planned economies such as China and Russia are now allowing private investors to determine where investment capital should go.

Hoover provided investment capital with the RFC and the companies sat on the money, what businessman would continue producing products that no one is buying? Of course the investers could insist the factory keep producing but what investers would do that? Why did farmers dump their milk in ditches when people wanted the milk? The farmers had the product, no investers needed, but it went into ditches. Why would companies spend billions on advertising to create a demand if demand wasn't a major factor?

The problems began with the stock market crash that wiped out investment capital and forced businesses to close their doors and liquidate assets to try to pay off their debts. This is what produced the unemployment you are talking about.

Once the economy had reached this point, there was no way I know of to quickly return it to its former prosperity, however, if Hoover had been able to immediately flood the country with emergency rescue loans to businesses that had had their debts called in, many businesses would not have had to close their doors and lay off their employees and it is likely that the nation would not have suffered nearly so terrible a depression, but the federal government lacked the financial tools necessary to do this on a large scale in those days.

If Obama had made government loans available to all credit worthy businesses and individuals that had been turned down by the banks when the troubled banks started cutting back on lending in 2009, we might well have avoided the recent recession and by now, be enjoying a more robust economy. Instead, Obama tried and failed to revitalize the economy by increasing demand through his stimulus bill.

Not too long ago, both Sweden and Japan suffered financial crises brought on bursting real estate bubbles just as we have, and the two countries responded to their crises in strikingly different ways and had strikingly different outcomes. Japan tried to revitalize its economy by increasing demand through large scale deficit spending on infrastructure projects just as Obama did later, and as long as the deficit spending continued, unemployment fell and the gdp rose, but when the debt reached unsustainable levels and Japan was forced to reduce its deficit spending the economy fell right back into recession and stayed there until Japan finally restructured its troubled banks, making capital more easily available to private investors and the private sector economy finally began to grow again.

In Sweden, the government immediately took over the troubled banks, removing their troubled assets and resupplying them with cash so there there was never a time when credit worthy borrowers did not have the access to loans they needed and the recession that would surely have otherwise followed their financial crisis was prevented. In both cases the key to recovery was ensuring the private sector economy had adequate access to capital,and in no case was the private sector economy ever revitalized by deficit spending to increase demand alone.

 

[Sarah G]

And that individual's business is not going to grow to the point where he needs employees if there's no one to buy his goods or services in the first place.

That is a false premise predicated on the belief that only one class (middle) does any of the buying.

They do most of the buying and without them there is no market....

That's right. Things are produced for the masses not only the one percenters who can afford to buy anything. How can anyone buy if they only earn enough to pay for housing, utilities, the basics.

In fixing the economy, keep the middle class in the game, fair taxing for all, decent healthcare that isn't through the roof expensive, it all ties into it. I'm not talking socialism. I'm talking about seeing the big picture that's all inclusive.